The effectiveness of recruitment strategies on general practitioner's survey response rates - A systematic review

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Pit, Sabrina Winona ^a   Vo, Tham ^a   Pyakurel, Sagun ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; REMINDER SYSTEM; REWARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA COLLECTION; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; PATIENT SELECTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REMINDER SYSTEMS; REWARD;

EID: 84902537712     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-76     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Pit S, Improving Quality Use of Medicines for Older People in General Practice. A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. PhD Thesis Newcastle: University of Newcastle 2005
2. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL, Eval Health Prof 2007 30 4 303 321 10.1177/0163278707307899 17986667
3. Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature. Creavin ST, Creavin AL, Mallen CD, Fam Pract 2011 28 4 461 467 10.1093/fampra/cmr001 21335412
4. Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians' perspective: a postal survey. Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, Karrer W, Puhan MA, BMC Med Res Meth 2009 9 14 10.1186/1471-2288-9-14
5. Prolonging a sustainable working life among older rural GPs: solutions from the horse's mouth. Hansen V, Pit SW, Honeyman P, Barclay L, Rural Rem Health 2013 13 2 2369
6. Identifying strategies to maximise recruitment and retention of practices and patients in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of an intervention to optimise secondary prevention for coronary heart disease in primary care. Leathem CS, Cupples ME, O'Malley M, Houlihan A, Murphy AW, Smith SM, BMC Med Res Meth 2009 9 1 40 10.1186/1471-2288-9-40
7. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrom M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell E, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 4 R000013 doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 20393971
8. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009 3 R000008 doi:10.1002/14651858. MR000008.pub4 19588449
9. The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys: a meta-analysis. de Leeuw E, Callegaro M, Hox J, Korendijk E, Lensvelt-Mulders G, Publ Opin Q 2007 71 3 413 443 10.1093/poq/nfm014
10. Maximising response to postal questionnaires-a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE, BMC Med Res Meth 2006 6 5 10.1186/1471-2288-6-5
11. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. Deehan A, Templeton L, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J, Br J Gen Pract 1997 47 415 87 90 9101691 (Pubitemid 27075387)
12. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. Jepson C, Asch DA, Hershey JC, Ubel PA, J Clin Epidemiol 2005 58 1 103 105 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.004 15649678 (Pubitemid 40093119)
13. No difference demonstrated between faxed or mailed prenotification in promoting questionnaire response among family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. Gattellari M, Zwar N, Worthington JM, J Clin Epidemiol 2012 65 5 544 552 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.014 22445084
14. Physician response to surveys: a review of the literature. Kellerman SE, Herold J, Am J Prev Med 2001 20 1 61 67 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00258-0 (Pubitemid 32013069)
15. Methods to influence the completeness of response to self-administered questionnaires (Protocol). Edwards PJ, Cooper R, Wentz R, Fernandes J, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 Issue 2 rt. No.: MR000015 doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000015. pub2 (Pubitemid 351805831)
16. Methods to increase response rates for data collected by telephone (Protocol). Hoile EC, Free C, Edwards PJ, Felix LM, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009 Issue 3 rt. No.: MR000029 doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000029
17. Bias, prevalence and kappa. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB, J Clin Epidemiol 1993 46 5 423 429 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V 8501467 (Pubitemid 23194263)
18. Review Manager (RevMan), [Computer program]. Version 5.2 Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration 2012
19. Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in cochrane reviews: cross-sectional study. Schroll J, Moustgaard R, GÃ̧tzsche P, BMC Med Res Meth 2011 11 22 10.1186/1471-2288-11-22
20. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Group TP, PLoS Med 2009 6 6 1000097 19621072
21. I am not selling anything: 29 experiments in telephone introductions. de Leeuw ED, Hox JJ, Int J Publ Opin Res 2004 16 4 464 473 10.1093/ijpor/edh040 (Pubitemid 39558168)
22. Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Rendell JM, Merritt RK, Geddes J, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 2 R000021 doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000021.pub3 (Pubitemid 351805793)
23. A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Yu J, Cooper HY, Journal Market Res 1983 20 No. 1 36 44 10.2307/3151410
24. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. Scott A, Jeon S-H, Joyce CM, Humphreys JS, Kalb G, Witt J, Leahy A, BMC Med Res Meth 2011 11 126 10.1186/1471-2288-11-126
25. A small unconditional non-financial incentive suggests an increase in survey response rates amongst older general practitioners (GPs): a randomised controlled trial study. Pit S, Hansen V, Ewald DP, BMC Fam Pract 2013 14 108 10.1186/1471-2296-14-108 23899116
26. Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget: a randomized trial comparing bill versus $5 bill incentives. Asch DA, Christakis NA, Ubel PA, Med Care 1998 36 1 95 99 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00011 9431335 (Pubitemid 128456403)
27. Getting physicians to respond: the impact of incentive type and timing on physician survey response rates. James KM, Ziegenfuss JY, Tilburt JC, Harris AM, Beebe TJ, Health Serv Res 2011 46 1 Pt 1 232 242 20880042
28. The effect of a monetary incentive in increasing the return rate of a survey to family physicians. Everett SA, Price JH, Bedell AW, Telljohann SK, Eval Health Prof 1997 20 2 207 214 10.1177/016327879702000206 10183321 (Pubitemid 27213084)
29. Cost-effectiveness of a lottery for increasing physicians' responses to a mail survey. Baron G, De Wals P, Milord F, Eval Health Prof 2001 24 1 47 52 10.1177/01632780122034777 11233584 (Pubitemid 32182259)
30. Response rates of Victorian general practitioners to a mailed survey on miscarriage: randomised trial of a prize and two forms of introduction to the research. McLaren B, Shelley J, Aust New Zeal J Publ Health 2000 24 4 360 364 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2000.tb01593.x
31. Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates. Robertson J, Walkom EJ, McGettigan P, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005 14 8 571 577 10.1002/pds.1126 15937989 (Pubitemid 41179487)
32. Short report: encouraging GPs to complete postal questionnaires-one big prize or many small prizes? A randomized controlled trial. Thomson CE, Paterson-Brown S, Russell D, McCaldin D, Russell IT, Fam Pract 2004 21 6 697 698 10.1093/fampra/cmh620 15531624 (Pubitemid 39654870)
33. Labour-saving strategies to maintain survey response rates: a randomised trial. Ward J, Bruce T, Holt P, D'Este K, Sladden M, Aust New Zeal J Publ Health 1998 22 3 Suppl 394 396 (Pubitemid 28253952)
34. Questionnaire order significantly increased response to a postal survey sent to primary care physicians. Drummond FJ, Sharp L, Carsin A-E, Kelleher T, Comber H, J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 2 177 185 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.012 18177791
35. Postal surveys of physicians gave superior response rates over telephone interviews in a randomized trial. Hocking JS, Lim MSC, Read T, Hellard M, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 5 521 524 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.009 16632141
36. Physician response rates to mail and personal interview surveys. Shosteck H, Fairweather WR, Publ Opin Q 1979 43 2 206 217 10.1086/268512
37. E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys. Seguin R, Godwin M, MacDonald S, McCall M, Can Fam Physician 2004 50 414 419 15318679 (Pubitemid 38372462)
38. Primer postcard improves postal survey response rates. Pirotta M, Gunn J, Farish S, Karabatsos G, Aust New Zeal J Publ Health 1999 23 2 196 197 10.1111/j.1467-842X.1999.tb01234.x (Pubitemid 29332821)
39. Differential effectiveness of telephone prompts by medical and nonmedical staff in increasing survey response rates: a randomised trial. Gupta L, Ward J, D'Este C, Aust New Zeal J Publ Health 1997 21 1 98 99 10.1111/j.1467-842X.1997. tb01662.x (Pubitemid 27254541)
40. Response rates in GP surveys-trialling two recruitment strategies. Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, Foster M, Girgis A, Aust Fam Physician 2011 40 6 427 430 21655493
41. The effects of tracking responses and the day of mailing on physician survey response rate: three randomized trials. Akl EA, Gaddam S, Mustafa R, Wilson MC, Symons A, Grifasi A, McGuigan D, Schunemann HJ, PLoS One 2011 6 2 16942 10.1371/journal.pone.0016942 21373197
42. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: an experimental study. Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J, Am J Publ Health 1989 79 5 638 639 10.2105/AJPH.79.5.638
43. Day-of-the-week effect on doctors' response to postal questionnaire. Olivarius NF, Andreasen AH, Scand J Prim Health Care 1995 13 1 65 67 10.3109/02813439508996737 7777738
44. Registered post achieved a higher response rate than normal mail-a randomized controlled trial. Pedrana A, Hellard M, Giles M, J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 9 896 899 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.004 18619793